Stegall v. SCDC

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

James Stegall, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From the Administrative Law Court

Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-234 

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 19, 2011

AFFIRMED

James Stegall, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James
Stegall appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order affirming the
Department of Corrections's inmate disciplinary action.  He argues the ALC
erred in holding he had waived his limited right to request witnesses.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (limiting reversal of an ALC decision unless
"in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; . . . [or] clearly
erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the
whole record."); Sanford v. S.C. State Ethics Comm'n, 385 S.C. 483,
496-97, 685 S.E.2d 600, 607 (2009) (holding that waiver is a "voluntary
and intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right" and that
the "determination of whether one's actions constitute wavier is a
question of fact").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur. 

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.